:00:00. > :00:10.Today on The Big Questions: Sex in the classroom,
:00:11. > :00:12.pictures of us the police have on file, and slashing
:00:13. > :00:28.the human birth rate to save other species.
:00:29. > :00:35.Today, we're live from the Students' Union at Northumbria University
:00:36. > :00:38.Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.
:00:39. > :00:44.On Wednesday, the Education Secretary, Justine Greening,
:00:45. > :00:47.announced that all schools, including academies and private
:00:48. > :00:48.schools, must provide age-appropriate sex
:00:49. > :00:56.From the age of four, all children will be taught
:00:57. > :00:58.about relationships between adults and what is appropriate
:00:59. > :01:04.behaviour between children, and between adults and children.
:01:05. > :01:06.And in secondary schools, sex education lessons will cover
:01:07. > :01:08.today's fastest growing risks - sexting, cyber-bullying
:01:09. > :01:19.Should porn be on the school curriculum?
:01:20. > :01:27.Clare McGlynn, law school, Durham University. What is it about the
:01:28. > :01:31.modern world, how things have changed which means schools really
:01:32. > :01:36.have to refocus and address this? The guidance schools have on sex and
:01:37. > :01:39.relationships education is 16 years old, completely out of date. We
:01:40. > :01:42.welcome the government's announcement this week. We need to
:01:43. > :01:46.give guidance and help to our young people to talk about what you
:01:47. > :01:50.mentioned, consent and sexual relationships. We need to talk about
:01:51. > :01:56.this online world that is so new to all of them and that many parents
:01:57. > :01:59.don't understand. About 16, online pornography, cyber bullying.
:02:00. > :02:06.Importantly, we need to give them this guide of -- about sex sting.
:02:07. > :02:08.This is part of a broader strategy to reduce the prevalence about
:02:09. > :02:13.sexual harassment and violence against women and girls. APPLAUSE
:02:14. > :02:20.On this particular issue, cyber bullying and sexting and porn, this
:02:21. > :02:24.is about equipping children to deal with the world as it is, not the
:02:25. > :02:28.world as you would like it to be or the world as it was. Absolutely. I
:02:29. > :02:32.don't think anyone would disagree that we need to equip children.
:02:33. > :02:36.There are some questions around what's actually going to be in the
:02:37. > :02:39.curriculum, we don't know yet, the content hasn't been published. As
:02:40. > :02:44.soon as the announcement was made, there was quite a strong campaign to
:02:45. > :02:48.remove the parental opt out. Quite a campaign to say that the religious
:02:49. > :02:52.protection and protection of religious education should be
:02:53. > :02:55.removed. Isn't there a problem that those who would opt out and take
:02:56. > :02:58.their children out of these classes are perhaps disproportionately the
:02:59. > :03:01.very parents who would be less likely to address these issues at
:03:02. > :03:06.home? That's possible. The question is, how do we empower parents to
:03:07. > :03:09.have this conversation? The evidence is very clear that parents want to
:03:10. > :03:12.have these conversations with their children. And children would prefer
:03:13. > :03:17.to have those conversations with their parents as well. Parents don't
:03:18. > :03:20.know what to say, they don't know how to have conversations in terms
:03:21. > :03:26.of online threats. Their children are much more technologically savvy,
:03:27. > :03:29.they don't know how to deal with it. One of the things I will be
:03:30. > :03:33.campaigning for while this debate is going on is, what are we doing to
:03:34. > :03:37.empower parents as well as empowering students? And also, what
:03:38. > :03:42.are we doing to secure the family? The biggest influence on any child
:03:43. > :03:45.when they are growing up is their family. I don't actually see
:03:46. > :03:50.anything in these proposals that say we will be talking about building
:03:51. > :03:54.strong families. The government's own evidence... In what sense?
:03:55. > :03:59.Stronger, traditional families? Strong families where adults love
:04:00. > :04:03.their children, children learn to love and be loved, trust and be
:04:04. > :04:07.trusted. Places that are safe for their children. Should there be a
:04:08. > :04:12.parental opt out? I don't think so. We need to think about the child's
:04:13. > :04:16.rights. What about religious sensibilities? This is for the
:04:17. > :04:19.children. We owe our children the education and guidance they need to
:04:20. > :04:22.deal with consent, sexual relationships and the online world.
:04:23. > :04:26.We can't let parents opt out of this because we need to give the skills
:04:27. > :04:32.to the child. If we are going to reduce sexual harassment and sexual
:04:33. > :04:35.violence, you can't opt out of that. Everyone needs to know about
:04:36. > :04:38.consent. Everyone needs to understand what is necessary in
:04:39. > :04:42.consent and sexual relationships, we can't have an opt out. I think you
:04:43. > :04:48.absolutely have to have a parental opt out simply because the child is
:04:49. > :04:50.the child of the parent. The parent should have as much control as
:04:51. > :04:56.possible over their children and should decide these things. To say
:04:57. > :05:00.the state should have the ability to override parents, whether it is
:05:01. > :05:03.religious reasons or personal reasons, to take their child out of
:05:04. > :05:06.sexual education is frightening. That is a frightening prospect to
:05:07. > :05:09.say the state should have more control about what their children
:05:10. > :05:12.are taught rather than their parents. It is actually about
:05:13. > :05:16.collective response of the leading role of us to educate our children
:05:17. > :05:20.and young people on these issues. We can't have parents just opting out
:05:21. > :05:33.of these choices. What about the sex culture? Rape culture that people
:05:34. > :05:38.talk about, male violence in our schools and society generally. This
:05:39. > :05:43.comprehensive evidence was put before the cross-party select
:05:44. > :05:47.committee. It is a problem and the best place is starting in education
:05:48. > :05:50.in our schools. This is part of a really gross panic about the levels
:05:51. > :05:54.of sexual harassment. We don't have a huge levels of sexual harassment
:05:55. > :06:01.at school, we are talking about teaching, four-year-olds about adult
:06:02. > :06:04.issues. This new call for greater sex education with things about
:06:05. > :06:11.pornography and sexting and relationships is about making sex a
:06:12. > :06:15.big deal for kids that they are panicked and frightened before they
:06:16. > :06:19.need to be. Liz, you are moving so much in your chair, I am worried for
:06:20. > :06:25.the safety of the furniture! Audience in a second. The reality
:06:26. > :06:28.is, we deliver relationship and sex education to 24,000 children and
:06:29. > :06:34.young people each year. More than 2000 parents as well. The reality is
:06:35. > :06:38.very, very few parents actually withdraw their children from
:06:39. > :06:42.relationship and sex education. Especially when they understand what
:06:43. > :06:47.it covers. We send out letters to say that we will be working with
:06:48. > :06:52.three-year-olds, up to 18-year-olds. And from aged four, we will be
:06:53. > :06:57.covering issues such as pornography, sexting. Such as that. This brings
:06:58. > :07:01.loads of parents in because it's like, panic, what on earth are you
:07:02. > :07:06.going to be doing? Over to the experts? Yeah. When they see the
:07:07. > :07:11.age-appropriate resources that we use, parents are completely at ease.
:07:12. > :07:15.They understand that the world that we are moving into is very, very
:07:16. > :07:19.different from when they were at school. Casper, why are you shaking
:07:20. > :07:24.your head? I would definitely want to opt out for my children. I
:07:25. > :07:29.actually think the agenda behind a lot of this stuff that is being
:07:30. > :07:33.suggested to be taught, and is being taught, is a really degraded notion
:07:34. > :07:37.of what it is to be human. It implies that all men are a problem a
:07:38. > :07:43.lot of the time. It problem ties is normal sexual behaviour. It is
:07:44. > :07:52.really outrageous. It is disturbing. What do you mean it makes problem...
:07:53. > :07:54.To thinking that way. What do you mean it problematizes is normal
:07:55. > :08:00.sexual behaviour? Basically, it encourages young
:08:01. > :08:07.people to see everybody else as a potential threat. To see all sexual
:08:08. > :08:11.activity as potentially dangerous. It's a really unhealthy way of
:08:12. > :08:14.looking at the world. Look at all the child abuse cases in the past
:08:15. > :08:21.which are horrific and horrendous. Any right minded person is brought
:08:22. > :08:25.to tears reading about it. Dan, let me throw that, from the Catholic
:08:26. > :08:30.Herald, I don't mean to beat Italy point at you for that reason, but
:08:31. > :08:33.the Catholic Church has had huge problems -- I don't mean to
:08:34. > :08:36.particularly point. Maybe if children were empowered and knew
:08:37. > :08:40.what it was right and wrong to touch, what was right, what was
:08:41. > :08:43.wrong, what somebody should not be doing to you, taught from a very
:08:44. > :08:47.early age, that would have stopped some of these horrors in the past
:08:48. > :08:50.visited on them by clerics? You are right, we can't do enough to
:08:51. > :08:54.safeguard children and the Catholic Church is one of the institutions
:08:55. > :08:59.which has bailed out that. In the past when it comes to sex education,
:09:00. > :09:04.not a one agrees about the guidance -- which has failed in that in the
:09:05. > :09:07.past. One of the leading guidance on sex education, as part of their
:09:08. > :09:10.definition of sexual healthy development include 413-year-old
:09:11. > :09:13.having sex with those of a similar age and develop mental
:09:14. > :09:18.13-year-olds. You may agree with that but a lot of parents would want
:09:19. > :09:21.to opt out of that. That is why it should go back to the parents and
:09:22. > :09:27.not too what are often quite radical agenda being pushed. Radical
:09:28. > :09:32.agendas, we will get onto alleged radical agendas, actual radical
:09:33. > :09:37.agendas in the second -- in a second. Good morning. Is this
:09:38. > :09:43.appropriate in school at an early age? Going back to a point raised
:09:44. > :09:46.earlier, I am surprised to hear from a young girl in myself that she
:09:47. > :09:49.doesn't believe there is sexual harassment in this day and age.
:09:50. > :09:53.There certainly is. International women's day is coming up and in
:09:54. > :09:58.preparation a teacher at my school asked a group of girls together to
:09:59. > :10:02.ask about our opinions. Our daily experience of the sexual harassment,
:10:03. > :10:07.does it exist, and it certainly does exist. Good education at a very
:10:08. > :10:13.early stage and in primary school and secondary school, would it
:10:14. > :10:18.militate against that? Certainly. People who believe that teaching
:10:19. > :10:22.about porn at school will somehow people will then imitated is
:10:23. > :10:28.certainly not true. If you believe that porn is dangerous, there is
:10:29. > :10:33.more reason to teach about it. You can't educate ourselves out of a
:10:34. > :10:38.social problem. We really have to take a step back and see that there
:10:39. > :10:42.is such a hype and panic around sexual harassment and sexual
:10:43. > :10:46.assaults. Which is inflating stats and is untrue. The biggest losers in
:10:47. > :10:50.this conversation are women and young girls that are taught sex
:10:51. > :10:56.education in this very panicked, very frightened we. It teaches them,
:10:57. > :11:00.as Casper said, to see all sexual relations as problematic. They are
:11:01. > :11:05.taught to tick box for things like consent in a very unnatural way,
:11:06. > :11:08.which makes them grow up to be women who encounter sexual relations as a
:11:09. > :11:12.potential threat, as a problem, rather than a great part of life. An
:11:13. > :11:19.emotional formalised codification. Absolutely. Good morning. It was
:11:20. > :11:22.quite interesting how one of you was going on about making good families.
:11:23. > :11:26.I find it important that schools should be a safe place for children.
:11:27. > :11:30.Especially if you are from a broken family, from divorced parents. And
:11:31. > :11:36.both parents don't have that communication to talk to one
:11:37. > :11:41.another. About sex education. And it is left completely by itself. You
:11:42. > :11:44.have children who have no support from parents who don't want to talk
:11:45. > :11:49.to one another about sex education. And they only see school as a safe
:11:50. > :11:53.place, a safe environment where they have this, kind of, antagonistic
:11:54. > :12:00.behaviour at home. So they rely on their teachers. People who they see
:12:01. > :12:04.five times a week. For the good part of eight hours a day. They rely on
:12:05. > :12:09.teachers. Especially from a very young age. It's incredibly important
:12:10. > :12:13.to have sexual education in schools. APPLAUSE
:12:14. > :12:23.Whilst it is important to have this, this ought to be done in very close
:12:24. > :12:28.cooperation with parents. If parents feel that they are left out of this
:12:29. > :12:34.initiative, I don't like it can work. OK. I completely agree with
:12:35. > :12:38.that. I called you lose early on. You went on regardless, which is
:12:39. > :12:42.exactly the right thing -- I called you Liz. What is appropriate for a
:12:43. > :12:47.three-year-old, teaching a three-year-old or a four-year-old?
:12:48. > :12:51.And how that is done. When we go into primary schools, we work with
:12:52. > :12:57.the nursery children first. It is a little session, about ten minutes.
:12:58. > :13:01.We show them little drawings, little cartoon boy and cartoon girl, to
:13:02. > :13:04.explain that boys' bodies are different to girls' bodies, their
:13:05. > :13:08.bodies are private and nobody should touch them unless they want them to.
:13:09. > :13:13.And we go through the four area that nobody should touch unless they want
:13:14. > :13:18.them to, the mouth, the chest, always have a Venus and girls have a
:13:19. > :13:24.joiner and bare bottom. We get them to do the action and they think that
:13:25. > :13:31.is great fun. -- always have a penis and girls have a vagina. Parents
:13:32. > :13:34.liked seeing the resources. Why are you looking horrified? This is a
:13:35. > :13:40.terrible intrusion onto the innocence of children. Children
:13:41. > :13:44.played doctors. It is a great thing. Adults exploit innocent children.
:13:45. > :13:48.We're not talking about adults, we're talking about children's
:13:49. > :13:52.interactions with themselves. The previous point about educating
:13:53. > :13:56.children about where they should not be touched, a small three-year-old
:13:57. > :14:01.will not be able to stop an adult. Can I just say, nothing takes away
:14:02. > :14:07.children's innocence. It does if you say this is bad. From sexual abuse.
:14:08. > :14:12.Kids play! The great thing about kids, they figure out a lot on their
:14:13. > :14:15.own. They figured out a lot on their own and between each other. They
:14:16. > :14:19.played doctors and nurses, all this kind of stuff, lines are drawn and
:14:20. > :14:26.they work it out between themselves. You are damning parents' ability to
:14:27. > :14:28.take care of their children. Surprising to see people very
:14:29. > :14:34.concerned about the family of children, the nine children --
:14:35. > :14:38.denying children the power to protect themselves. When people say
:14:39. > :14:41.that should be for the parents, there is nothing about educating
:14:42. > :14:44.children in schools that stops parents from educating them at home.
:14:45. > :14:49.They are really saying, I don't want my children to know about this. I
:14:50. > :14:53.won't tell them, I don't want you to tell them because I feel it is
:14:54. > :14:57.mysterious and scary. They probably are not going to find out about it,
:14:58. > :15:00.they will not look into it. If they tell you about it they will be
:15:01. > :15:07.interested and find out about porn, sex doing -- sexting and
:15:08. > :15:13.relationships. They will find out about porn. Casper.
:15:14. > :15:19.It is scary to tell a child they should be worried about a person
:15:20. > :15:24.touching them? Or grid that is an adult responsibility, three-year-old
:15:25. > :15:28.can protect themselves. It is not about a child being able
:15:29. > :15:31.to protect themselves, it is the child having the knowledge to go to
:15:32. > :15:37.an adult and seeing it as inappropriate.
:15:38. > :15:40.APPLAUSE If the parents were doing such a
:15:41. > :15:42.good job without the state then we would not have some of the scandals
:15:43. > :15:46.we have seen. This is adding to what parents do
:15:47. > :15:49.and protecting young people, it should be encouraged. Education is
:15:50. > :15:53.about giving the knowledge skills for people to go into the world,
:15:54. > :15:57.being aware of sexual expectation is some of the knowledge they need.
:15:58. > :16:02.There is an issue with the underpinning ideology of a lot of
:16:03. > :16:07.the campaigning. We skated over that, what is the underpinning
:16:08. > :16:13.ideology? You are from Christians in Education. The underpinning ideology
:16:14. > :16:17.is that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, society should do as it
:16:18. > :16:20.wishes and let's teach children to defend themselves. When we teach
:16:21. > :16:25.children how to cross the road we do not teach them about different cars,
:16:26. > :16:30.we teach them that can stop at a red light and they can cross safely. Why
:16:31. > :16:35.are we not talking about moral red lights amongst adults if society?
:16:36. > :16:46.Give some examples. I have not seen anything about teaching young people
:16:47. > :16:48.about abstinence, faithfulness and exclusivity within marriage. Why are
:16:49. > :16:51.we not teaching those? John, you made a strange phase. I apologise if
:16:52. > :16:55.it was nothing to do with what was said.
:16:56. > :16:59.Children have rights completely separate to the parents, it has been
:17:00. > :17:02.touched on already that sometimes parents do a terrific job and I
:17:03. > :17:07.think the programmes described can help parents in that, but children
:17:08. > :17:12.have rights completely separate to parents, and I think probably the
:17:13. > :17:16.programme talked about here is to enforce children's' writes as
:17:17. > :17:22.separate individuals. What was it like for you, growing up in Ireland?
:17:23. > :17:27.My own case was happy enough but Ireland generally, we had enormous
:17:28. > :17:32.problems with abuse, particularly among religious orders and so on, it
:17:33. > :17:36.was a huge com huge problems. Religious control of education in
:17:37. > :17:40.Ireland meant that lots of people were abused and there was no
:17:41. > :17:44.reporting system, children were disabled from reporting and there
:17:45. > :17:48.was a whole generation of broken adults out of that system. Would
:17:49. > :17:58.knowledge have been power? Absolutely. How can knowledge be
:17:59. > :18:04.power? There is a difference... Knowing to tell an adult... An adult
:18:05. > :18:08.to abuse as a child usually it's in -- intimidates, lies, tells them
:18:09. > :18:13.they are at fault and not to tell, all of these things you see in
:18:14. > :18:17.actual abuse cases. You will not protect a child by telling them this
:18:18. > :18:23.stuff and you are not allowing... That is a sinister manifestation of
:18:24. > :18:33.something they pretend is love, that happens quite often. Let's take it
:18:34. > :18:35.back to abstinence. You are missing the point about what is damaging
:18:36. > :18:38.about teaching people in this way. Children will have a terrible view
:18:39. > :18:42.of adults. Lots of people say fidelity and abstinence and
:18:43. > :18:47.constancy, should that be taught? These are part of a discussion about
:18:48. > :18:50.relationships. There are some real misunderstandings here. This is not
:18:51. > :18:54.about telling children what to do. The worst thing you can do as
:18:55. > :18:58.children is as as adults say this is what you need to do and how you do
:18:59. > :19:03.it. It is giving them a forum to discuss issues, the young women
:19:04. > :19:07.themselves are asking us to give them these opportunities. The bottom
:19:08. > :19:12.line is that if we do not educate them they are going online, looking
:19:13. > :19:17.at pornography online, as many do, it is deeply racist, deeply sexist,
:19:18. > :19:21.often violent, sexual lies as young girls and does not give a healthy
:19:22. > :19:27.view of sexual relationships. It is distorted. -- Id sexual lies as
:19:28. > :19:31.young girls. If we do not educate them, they will get this distorted
:19:32. > :19:37.view of what is going on. APPLAUSE
:19:38. > :19:40.Who decides what the content is? Who decides what children should and
:19:41. > :19:45.should not know? That is what worries me. The Internet the sides,
:19:46. > :19:52.hence the sexting, pornography, cyber bullying. It is decided for
:19:53. > :19:56.them. We really need to stick up for parents, we get a lot of parent
:19:57. > :20:03.bashing. When people are given sex education, my own family are very
:20:04. > :20:06.good at talking about sex education, there are other families that are
:20:07. > :20:10.not and that is where school needs to step in. You are saying but some
:20:11. > :20:14.parents are abusing their children by not teaching them about sex ads,
:20:15. > :20:20.whether that is religious parents or parents who want to hang back and
:20:21. > :20:24.let their children because well -- by not teaching them about sex
:20:25. > :20:27.education. They are very important and special family units in which
:20:28. > :20:35.parents have control over their children, it is worrying. I grant
:20:36. > :20:41.you the last word. How do we allow kids to be kids? All of us working
:20:42. > :20:44.together, schools, parents and specialist organisations working
:20:45. > :20:49.together to keep children safe. The one thing we seem to have made the
:20:50. > :20:54.assumption about in the debate here is that where children are abused it
:20:55. > :20:59.is adults. One out of every three children that are sexually abused is
:21:00. > :21:04.abused by another child. It is educating children to speak out to
:21:05. > :21:08.trusted adults, whether at home or at school. Thank you all very much
:21:09. > :21:08.indeed. APPLAUSE
:21:09. > :21:11.Interesting thoughts. If you have something to say
:21:12. > :21:13.about that debate log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,
:21:14. > :21:16.and follow the link to where you can We're also debating live this
:21:17. > :21:20.morning in the Students' Union at Northumbria University,
:21:21. > :21:23.is your image public property? And does the planet need the Vatican
:21:24. > :21:27.to accept contraception? Get tweeting or emailing on those
:21:28. > :21:30.topics now or send us any other ideas or thoughts you may have
:21:31. > :21:36.about the programme. The Police National Database,
:21:37. > :21:39.which covers England and Wales, is storing pictures and videos
:21:40. > :21:41.of people they may have questioned, arrested, or observed
:21:42. > :21:43.at demonstrations or festivals, many of whom were never
:21:44. > :21:49.convicted of any offence. 19 million items are from
:21:50. > :21:53.custody images alone. With DNA evidence and fingerprints,
:21:54. > :21:56.the police are legally obliged to automatically destroy any records
:21:57. > :21:58.they hold of people found And in 2012, the High Court ruled
:21:59. > :22:05.that keeping images of innocent Yet, despite this ruling,
:22:06. > :22:10.the police continued to amass Now the Home Secretary has ruled
:22:11. > :22:17.that images of innocent people should be deleted
:22:18. > :22:20.but only if the person concerned specifically
:22:21. > :22:24.asks for this to happen. The snag is that many of us have no
:22:25. > :22:44.idea whether our image Paul, Lord Scriven, you have been
:22:45. > :22:49.campaigning on this for a long time. Who is on this database? We don't
:22:50. > :22:55.know, that is the issue. If you have been into custody, false arrest, or
:22:56. > :22:59.the court found you innocent, you are on, because the guidance that
:23:00. > :23:03.just comes out says that the database and the software they are
:23:04. > :23:07.using does not have the ability to wipe you offer. The software does
:23:08. > :23:12.not know if you are innocent or guilty so you remain on, there are
:23:13. > :23:15.millions of people. They are scanning Facebooked, scanning people
:23:16. > :23:20.who have been to festivals who have been uploaded. Why should people be
:23:21. > :23:26.worried? The whole basis of British law is you are innocent until proven
:23:27. > :23:31.guilty. I have no problem with the police using good detective
:23:32. > :23:35.techniques and appropriate images, but to say that the Government has a
:23:36. > :23:40.right to have your face on a database which is not just used by
:23:41. > :23:45.the police but many other Government agencies because of the fact you
:23:46. > :23:49.have been to a festival or they have been scanning your face page or you
:23:50. > :23:56.were wrongly arrested and uploaded onto the system, that they can keep
:23:57. > :24:01.and use it for enquiring about a crime or about... You could get a
:24:02. > :24:05.photograph of every single person in this audience by googling it,
:24:06. > :24:09.looking online, you could probably get that of anyone within two or
:24:10. > :24:14.three minutes, it is out there. There is a difference between you
:24:15. > :24:19.and I as an individual citizen going on to Google and uploading something
:24:20. > :24:24.on Facebook, and the state holding millions of innocent images for the
:24:25. > :24:29.purpose of its own use. That is the issue.
:24:30. > :24:34.APPLAUSE You are a body language and
:24:35. > :24:38.deception detection expert, a former cop, why is this useful?
:24:39. > :24:42.Digital policing for a digital age? In terms of gathering evidence, I
:24:43. > :24:47.would agree that capturing people's images carte blanche is not really a
:24:48. > :24:51.good idea, but I think if people have been convicted of offences, for
:24:52. > :24:56.example DNA came in many years ago, it is something we accept now. A lot
:24:57. > :25:01.of offences come to light now, historically, that otherwise would
:25:02. > :25:07.not have been convicted. It has got a place, providing it is regulated
:25:08. > :25:12.and not used, again, just to capture innocent people's images, that could
:25:13. > :25:17.be potentially dangerous. How reliable is it, even DNA, which is
:25:18. > :25:22.amazing, there could be mistakes with contamination, lots of people
:25:23. > :25:27.look like each other? There are lots of systems at the moment in terms of
:25:28. > :25:30.capturing biometric characteristics, fingerprints, we all use
:25:31. > :25:34.fingerprints on phones, biometrics and things like that are very much
:25:35. > :25:39.out there in part of normal society at the moment. If you were a
:25:40. > :25:46.criminal, how would you circumvent this, 3D masks are coming out? I saw
:25:47. > :25:49.that in the press. For most systems there will be a loophole, but it
:25:50. > :25:54.comes down to the fact that if you are not engaged in terrorism or
:25:55. > :25:58.crime, you generally have nothing to worry about, providing the system is
:25:59. > :26:03.regulated. You have nothing to worry about? Have you got something to
:26:04. > :26:07.worry about? I worry about my relationship with the state and the
:26:08. > :26:14.police treating me as a potential criminal. I am not a potential
:26:15. > :26:18.criminal, I hope I am not. In this instance, my right to privacy and
:26:19. > :26:22.not to be treated as a suspect, but also it is not actually effective
:26:23. > :26:27.for the police to have a bigger database, it does not make it
:26:28. > :26:31.better. The DNA database this year has been more successful than ever
:26:32. > :26:34.because it is not clogged up with millions of innocent people that the
:26:35. > :26:39.police do not need their information. Police don't need my
:26:40. > :26:46.photograph. To have it does nothing to improve their detection rates.
:26:47. > :26:51.APPLAUSE I look at it from a legal point of
:26:52. > :26:55.view, we have a right to privacy, article eight of the European
:26:56. > :26:58.Convention on human rights, it is qualified because if it is necessary
:26:59. > :27:03.in a democratic society for the state to interfere which, in this
:27:04. > :27:06.case, could be the police, to prevent or detect crime, it is
:27:07. > :27:11.qualified. The High Court ruling in 2012, that
:27:12. > :27:25.is untrue. Article eight, they said if you are innocent or convicted,
:27:26. > :27:28.the police, the state, cannot use your image in that way. The
:27:29. > :27:30.guidelines that have just come out say that the Home Secretary has
:27:31. > :27:33.said, whether you are innocent or guilty and you don't ask that your
:27:34. > :27:36.image to be taken off that you may not know, they will store it for up
:27:37. > :27:39.to ten years and use it in the same way as a convicted person. The issue
:27:40. > :27:42.is not police using it, I believe it has a role, the issue is that people
:27:43. > :27:44.not convicted of anything are having their face used by the state and
:27:45. > :27:50.presumed guilty rather than innocent, that is the issue.
:27:51. > :27:54.I think the issue, I agree, if the person is arrested, I don't like
:27:55. > :27:58.that wrongful arrest, the person arrested with insufficient evidence
:27:59. > :28:04.to charge... That is the classic argument, nothing to hide, nothing
:28:05. > :28:07.to fear? Is a person is arrested and there was insufficient evidence to
:28:08. > :28:10.charge and they are acquitted in court and they have no other
:28:11. > :28:16.offences, I agree, destroy the image. There are individuals who
:28:17. > :28:21.have a criminal background who are still being investigated, it is
:28:22. > :28:26.useful. People failing to answer bail, it is useful. It is useful for
:28:27. > :28:31.identification purposes. Our faces change, I look at people my age,
:28:32. > :28:36.some have lost their hair, we all change, it is useful. That is why
:28:37. > :28:41.you constantly need to update? Your face is not as private as your DNA
:28:42. > :28:44.or fingerprint. People adding photographs taken at music
:28:45. > :28:51.festivals, they are not aware that is happening. I can't justify why
:28:52. > :28:56.they are doing that. Let's go to the audience, good morning. Your face is
:28:57. > :29:01.on a TV screen! That may be useful, but I would
:29:02. > :29:05.prefer if my pers -- my permission was sought, that is the big
:29:06. > :29:09.difference. No matter how useful something maybe, if someone is
:29:10. > :29:13.aware, at least, that their image is used, that is a lot more helpful.
:29:14. > :29:17.They can have a choice in the matter. Moving along to you in the
:29:18. > :29:21.brown jacket. The problem would be false
:29:22. > :29:25.positives. With an increasing amount of civilian population you run the
:29:26. > :29:29.risk of having false positives. The other notorious bad fact about
:29:30. > :29:33.facial mapping is it can't do contrasting in darker tone in skin,
:29:34. > :29:37.if you're going to implement something that takes away freedom
:29:38. > :29:41.and miscarriages of justice, surely there is no reason to involve
:29:42. > :29:46.innocent people into it? If you have ten people lined up and the picture
:29:47. > :29:52.is all with an ethnic minority, surely there is nine times out of
:29:53. > :29:53.ten a chance for false positives? It is not guaranteed you will come up
:29:54. > :29:58.with the culprit. A couple more audience members
:29:59. > :30:09.first. As a person who chance Harry Krishna
:30:10. > :30:13.mantras, I've come to understand that 24-7 surveillance by Krishna or
:30:14. > :30:16.God. That's not a problem, sometimes I am comforted by it because I
:30:17. > :30:23.understand he loves me and he's my friend. The issue we have with state
:30:24. > :30:28.surveillance is that that trust that the state is our well wish is being
:30:29. > :30:37.eroded. Dodgy dossiers, wiki leaks, etc. Divine Big Brother is one thing
:30:38. > :30:40.that the state, Kim Jong learned in the sky... Fine that erosion of
:30:41. > :30:45.public trust is a problem because it morphs into our own relationships
:30:46. > :30:49.between each other. It creates paranoia and distrust amongst
:30:50. > :30:55.people. Spiritual practice has a role to play in mitigating that. It
:30:56. > :30:58.helps us to understand that we are all connected and we are loved
:30:59. > :31:02.amongst each other. Interesting link with the first debate, sowing the
:31:03. > :31:06.seeds of paranoia. It is not paranoia if you are being watched
:31:07. > :31:11.and monitored, is it? Are they not out to get you? It is absolutely
:31:12. > :31:14.true. The vision of the police and the state as a friendly Big Brother.
:31:15. > :31:20.That it's OK if you have nothing to hide, nothing to fear. That's a
:31:21. > :31:23.terrifying concept. Any freethinking member of society would absolutely
:31:24. > :31:27.stand up for the fact that I am innocent until proven guilty. This
:31:28. > :31:31.could prove your innocence as well. It could go the other way. We are
:31:32. > :31:34.increasingly living in a culture which is much more comfortable with
:31:35. > :31:38.putting your picture on Facebook, putting a picture on the intranet.
:31:39. > :31:43.That is one thing when it is in your own personal control but the
:31:44. > :31:46.police... They must have hundreds of pictures of me because I've been on
:31:47. > :31:51.many demonstrations. That makes me feel nervous. The police have a
:31:52. > :31:54.history of not exactly being to the line and write about using images.
:31:55. > :32:01.They have a history of fitting crimes. We can't ignore that. This
:32:02. > :32:06.is a worrying concept. -- and being right about using images. There can
:32:07. > :32:10.be a degree of paranoia about state observation. It is not just about
:32:11. > :32:14.photographs. A recent piece of legislation came out late last year.
:32:15. > :32:19.It was highly scrutinised in my view. But this is about people
:32:20. > :32:27.worrying about what's on their social media. Andrew at MI5 18
:32:28. > :32:30.months ago before the Parliamentary committee said we haven't got the
:32:31. > :32:37.resources to monitor everybody's social media. It's about risk.
:32:38. > :32:41.Journalists, it's a very good resource for journalists, social
:32:42. > :32:46.media. When a story comes out about somebody, they are straight in
:32:47. > :32:51.there. There are photographs of them from social media all over the
:32:52. > :32:56.newspapers. The police still police by consent in this country. We still
:32:57. > :32:59.have that notion. But where is the consent from the millions of people
:33:00. > :33:06.on this database that are being used? There is no consent. It is a
:33:07. > :33:10.bit trite to say the police at the moment police by consent. There is
:33:11. > :33:14.no consent. I worry that it is undermining confidence in the
:33:15. > :33:18.police. I come from South Yorkshire where the police has been undermined
:33:19. > :33:22.by bad policing. I believe this will... Rotherham. This will lead to
:33:23. > :33:28.bad policing. From what the young man said. There is an issue about
:33:29. > :33:33.racial profiling in terms of facial imaging. It has proven that people
:33:34. > :33:37.with dark pigments and darker skin, facial software gets it wrong. Only
:33:38. > :33:43.one test has been done on a database of 1 million faces. Everyone says
:33:44. > :33:49.this is about 90% perfect. The examples have been done on databases
:33:50. > :33:53.of between 12,000 at 20,000 people. The one case that has been done in
:33:54. > :33:57.America which is on 1 million shows it goes down to only 33%
:33:58. > :34:01.effectiveness. There is an issue about the technology not being
:34:02. > :34:06.effective. Compounded by the fact that there are millions of people on
:34:07. > :34:08.here. If you have somebody that is suspected of being involved,
:34:09. > :34:12.terrorism things like that, the states have already got the systems
:34:13. > :34:17.in operation and I agree it is by no means foolproof, things like
:34:18. > :34:21.polygraph. It is not evidential. It just eludes to certain behaviours.
:34:22. > :34:28.But if it may be helps to prevent something happening, it's got to be
:34:29. > :34:32.a good thing, hasn't it? If I am on a plane and there is somebody taken
:34:33. > :34:35.off that plane that is suspected and it's been detected through facial
:34:36. > :34:41.recognition, you know, again, you've got to have the evidence but surely
:34:42. > :34:44.it's a good thing? What if they are wearing a burqa? Are you saying that
:34:45. > :34:51.the assumption in our society should be that they should show their
:34:52. > :34:53.faces? Not necessarily. If there is intelligence, for example, I would
:34:54. > :35:00.to a conference recently and I saw this software first-hand. It is not
:35:01. > :35:03.perfect. But if people have been tagged for intelligence, they are
:35:04. > :35:10.suspected of being involved in offences, this software was actually
:35:11. > :35:13.quite accurate in picking out... Tagging the delegates. Saying
:35:14. > :35:19.imagine you I suspect, walk towards us in a group and it facially trips
:35:20. > :35:25.it, red flags them. It all comes down to the fact that, for me, it
:35:26. > :35:28.has to be evident regulated. Not everybody should be on this
:35:29. > :35:33.database. It is a dangerous concept. But people that have been convicted
:35:34. > :35:39.are suspected. It's a good thing. But it is the old point, isn't it,
:35:40. > :35:43.Carol, they might have these photographs, they might be collating
:35:44. > :35:50.all of this information, but it's like the Stasi, the Soviets Soviet
:35:51. > :35:55.Union. -- the Soviet Union. I went to work towards the end of the
:35:56. > :35:58.soviet union. There is so much stuff, for practical purposes, you
:35:59. > :36:04.cannot wade through it. That is one thing we have to think about. We are
:36:05. > :36:06.infringing on rights. We are encroaching upon this idea of
:36:07. > :36:13.trusting the police and policing by consent. We have to do that in a
:36:14. > :36:17.balanced fashion. To say, what are the benefits? Are we benefiting from
:36:18. > :36:21.this? Is it an effective use of police resources to have a database
:36:22. > :36:26.with 90 million if mostly they will get false positives? Or if it will
:36:27. > :36:31.impact on police. I disagree horribly with the idea that because
:36:32. > :36:36.it's your image, that it's less intrusive -- disagree homely. The
:36:37. > :36:38.police officer can't see my DNA profile and then start questioning
:36:39. > :36:44.me or suspect me of something because my but they can because of
:36:45. > :36:48.my face. I can't hide that. If a police officer sees my photograph
:36:49. > :36:53.because I've been supporting the NHS at the weekend at a march and they
:36:54. > :36:58.see me at a shop and is triggered something in their mind that she's
:36:59. > :37:01.on the police database... That impacts on their behaviour. Would
:37:02. > :37:07.you be happy if the police were to take photographs of everybody on a
:37:08. > :37:12.BMP much? They haven't done anything wrong by being on a BMP March. If
:37:13. > :37:17.they have committed crimes or suspected of committed crimes, the
:37:18. > :37:21.police have measures they can date. Or in March of jihadis. The police
:37:22. > :37:24.are given powers in society. They are allowed to abrogate our rights
:37:25. > :37:28.in certain instances but we don't give them every power under the sun.
:37:29. > :37:34.David, do you think they are certain demonstrations... I do, without
:37:35. > :37:41.doubt. There are some groups who are maybe bordering on being described
:37:42. > :37:45.groups under the terrorism act. That will be... We are talking about
:37:46. > :37:49.people like Anshan Choudhury. A group like that. Some of those
:37:50. > :37:52.people have never committed a crime that you want to film them. The
:37:53. > :37:57.police have the right, if somebody is suspected of about to commit a
:37:58. > :38:01.crime, they can monitor them. That's within the law. Let me ask you
:38:02. > :38:05.again, people on rallies supporting somebody like an jam Choudhury,
:38:06. > :38:09.there might be 25 people. You have seen them with placards, should you
:38:10. > :38:13.not be filming those people? Absolutely not. If the police have
:38:14. > :38:16.determined that the lower case march is lawful.
:38:17. > :38:23.If the law says that it is lawful, people have the right to march. If
:38:24. > :38:28.there are individuals who the police know of, who are potential suspects,
:38:29. > :38:32.under the law, they are able to do that. It becomes a very slippery
:38:33. > :38:36.slope if you start saying some marches are good, some aren't. Is it
:38:37. > :38:42.legitimate to say he is newcomer he hasn't been on a March before, let's
:38:43. > :38:45.keep an eye on him? It is people's democratic right to protest. On
:38:46. > :38:50.certain marches like certain groups like David said, I think there are
:38:51. > :38:52.under certain circumstances, the police film things for intelligence
:38:53. > :38:59.circumstances. It is not right. You either have a
:39:00. > :39:05.right to do that without being filmed or monitored or you don't.
:39:06. > :39:08.You can't make an argument for freedom, but not for freedom for
:39:09. > :39:14.others. This is what the police does, this technology is the way I
:39:15. > :39:17.see it, more advanced version of stopping and searching. Targeting
:39:18. > :39:22.certain groups. The police are taking pictures and videos, there
:39:23. > :39:25.was a hilarious example, frightening, people tweeting a
:39:26. > :39:32.police of Michael McIntyre from a helicopter in sky. And that was a
:39:33. > :39:35.wake-up call. What they do is they target demonstrations, they target
:39:36. > :39:39.areas they think crime should happen. Very problematic in terms of
:39:40. > :39:44.racial profiling. This says certain people need to be watched. If you
:39:45. > :39:46.believe in freedom of expression and people's right to privacy and the
:39:47. > :39:51.belief that you are innocent until proven guilty, no matter if you are
:39:52. > :39:57.on an Antrim shroud it march or NHS March, you can't have a freedom
:39:58. > :40:00.but... Let me know. I'm going to curtail your freedom of speech.
:40:01. > :40:01.LAUGHTER Thank you all very much for taking
:40:02. > :40:06.part in that. If you have something to say
:40:07. > :40:08.about that debate log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions,
:40:09. > :40:25.and follow the link to where you can We are in Canterbury next week,
:40:26. > :40:27.Cardiff on March 19 and Oxford after that.
:40:28. > :40:29.This week, the Vatican held a conference on the
:40:30. > :40:33.Half of all the species alive today could be extinct
:40:34. > :40:35.by the end of this century, unless steps are taken
:40:36. > :40:37.to improve conservation and to change humans' behaviour.
:40:38. > :40:39.One of the most contentious issues is the growth
:40:40. > :40:44.At the time of Christ, around 300 million people
:40:45. > :40:49.Today there are 7.4 billion people, and experts say with 250,000 net
:40:50. > :40:51.added every day now, the world's population
:40:52. > :40:56.will reach 11 billion by the end of this century.
:40:57. > :41:00.The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which organised the conference,
:41:01. > :41:03.says that in 1970 humans were using around 70% of the earth's
:41:04. > :41:13.Yet 800 million people are chronically malnourished
:41:14. > :41:21.and 100 million are on the verge of starvation at any one time.
:41:22. > :41:24.Huge problems you can read about in your newspaper this morning.
:41:25. > :41:27.Changes must be made, they say, or there will be a sixth mass
:41:28. > :41:36.Does the planet need the Vatican to accept contraception?
:41:37. > :41:43.Karen, 11.2 billion by the end of the century. On this Little Rock
:41:44. > :41:47.spinning in this part of this universe. Can the cannot cope? The
:41:48. > :41:52.answer to the question is that we really don't know. We are taking a
:41:53. > :41:57.big gamble with the future lives and well-being billions of people, many
:41:58. > :42:00.of whom are life already. Children today have a good chance of being
:42:01. > :42:05.alive at the end of the century of see whatever it is we have created
:42:06. > :42:08.for them come to fruition. Where will the resources come from?
:42:09. > :42:12.Exactly. People often say we already produce enough food for 10 billion
:42:13. > :42:17.people. I haven't yet seen people say 11 billion. This is perfectly
:42:18. > :42:21.possible, the numbers, as much as 13 billion is well within the range of
:42:22. > :42:26.certainty. For the UN's projections. No one is saying... They are saying
:42:27. > :42:29.we already produce quite a lot of food and we will be fine. What they
:42:30. > :42:34.don't mention is that we are producing food in an unsustainable
:42:35. > :42:37.manner. We are producing food in a way that destroys productive
:42:38. > :42:41.capacity of the earth. Some techno optimists might say, we will figure
:42:42. > :42:46.something out. We might. I certainly hope we will. But we just don't
:42:47. > :42:49.know. We are pretty clever, some of us. We are pretty clever but we
:42:50. > :42:53.certainly don't know it will happen and we don't know if we will solve
:42:54. > :42:56.this problem. The population is not set in stone, the trajectory is not
:42:57. > :42:59.set in stone, people can change their minds about how many children
:43:00. > :43:04.to have. A lot of people today are not using contraception. Not because
:43:05. > :43:08.they want to have a lot of children, but because they feel it's wrong.
:43:09. > :43:12.They've been told it's wrong. It's full got to decide how many children
:43:13. > :43:15.to have. They are often feeling internal turmoil because they would
:43:16. > :43:19.like to provide for the children they already have. So we are in
:43:20. > :43:23.trouble? It is trouble for them. They feel unsupported by their
:43:24. > :43:30.culture religious leaders. In their wish to have a smaller family. So we
:43:31. > :43:33.could so easily make people's lives better and reduce this enormous risk
:43:34. > :43:38.to human beings and to our life. It's not coincident that we've lost
:43:39. > :43:42.more than half of wildlife -- coincidence that we've lost. As the
:43:43. > :43:47.same time as human population doubling. Lots of coincidences. Dan
:43:48. > :43:51.from the Catholic Herald, we actually... You might not
:43:52. > :43:58.particularly care for the wild or for wildlife, but we need animals.
:43:59. > :43:59.Because we need forests. Animals sustained forests. With no animals,
:44:00. > :44:07.there are forests. It's all about needing space, humans
:44:08. > :44:11.going into ever more areas. The ecosystems are so important. How
:44:12. > :44:16.much does it bother you that we are, for example, annihilating and
:44:17. > :44:20.destroying our closest relatives, the great apes, because of habitat
:44:21. > :44:23.destruction for palm oil? For biscuits, charcoal, does that
:44:24. > :44:33.trouble you? It is a huge issue both the future
:44:34. > :44:38.of the human race and the beauty of the. If there is a threat to the
:44:39. > :44:41.environment does not come from overpopulation, it comes from
:44:42. > :44:45.overconsumption. Look at fossil fuel emissions, and major threat to the
:44:46. > :44:49.environment. The average American produces the same amount of carbon
:44:50. > :44:54.emissions as 250 Ethiopians. The poorer half of the world's
:44:55. > :44:58.population produces 7% of the omissions. The problem is one with
:44:59. > :45:05.the ritual's consumption. Palm oil is a very good example. Sure. And,
:45:06. > :45:09.surprisingly enough, the rich world, instead of saying we need to look at
:45:10. > :45:13.how we consume and our society works has said that the real problem is
:45:14. > :45:18.poor people in Bangladesh being selfish and having more than three
:45:19. > :45:22.kids. I think we need to look urgently at what the West does.
:45:23. > :45:25.Those are the people that would be covered in the floods and suffer
:45:26. > :45:29.from famine, those will be the people... It is not a case of saying
:45:30. > :45:33.don't have any more children, it is saying that if we have too many
:45:34. > :45:36.children, you are the people who will suffer. Population growth is
:45:37. > :45:39.overwhelmingly in place is not creating the environment or
:45:40. > :45:45.problems, if we need to look urgently at the environment we need
:45:46. > :45:48.to look at... And a lot of people worried about overpopulation,
:45:49. > :45:51.population scientists like Stewart Brand who was very involved in the
:45:52. > :45:54.70s with the great panic about overpopulation, they say we got it
:45:55. > :45:58.completely wrong, we did not understand that the more people you
:45:59. > :46:02.have, the more creativity and ideas you have. They are now worried about
:46:03. > :46:06.under population, you will get to the middle of the century... Good
:46:07. > :46:10.luck with getting President Trump to halve the living standards of the
:46:11. > :46:19.American population. We asked him to appear on the programme but he does
:46:20. > :46:22.not like the BBC! John, the Pope said this is about greed, Dan put it
:46:23. > :46:26.very well, if we consumed less and properly managed agriculture,
:46:27. > :46:31.properly respected and protected the wild and the beautiful scent
:46:32. > :46:36.self-aware wild animals and dung beetles as well, and bumblebees, we
:46:37. > :46:41.would be all right. It is all about being sensible? Of course it is. I
:46:42. > :46:47.have to agree with Dan, consumption is a dagger at the heart of the
:46:48. > :46:51.natural world. However, consumption is one of the crunchers that we
:46:52. > :46:56.face. Population can never be extracted from this. For example, we
:46:57. > :47:01.have this idea and I think Dan referred to it as under population,
:47:02. > :47:05.the danger of under population. We are currently adding 80 million
:47:06. > :47:08.people a year to the world population, greater them the
:47:09. > :47:11.population of Great Britain, about the population of Germany being
:47:12. > :47:15.added to the world population every year. The strange thing is that
:47:16. > :47:20.according to UN figures, approximately 80 million people have
:47:21. > :47:26.unintended pregnancies every game. If we simply enabled people to
:47:27. > :47:32.control and manage their own fertility in the way that they wish
:47:33. > :47:35.and enable girls and young women to postpone first pregnancy and
:47:36. > :47:40.complete their education, we would offer an economic benefit to the
:47:41. > :47:44.poor... I want to come onto that in a moment, that first of all let's
:47:45. > :47:48.address the natural world. People say that the acidification of the
:47:49. > :47:52.ocean, the Wales, it is their planet. Look at what is happening in
:47:53. > :47:57.Africa. It is their planet, these wonderful species. Are enough people
:47:58. > :48:03.aware of the fact that these are very often sentience, self-aware
:48:04. > :48:11.animals with an inner life? When I started primary school in 1970, we
:48:12. > :48:15.had at that time 58% more wildlife in the world than today. It is
:48:16. > :48:19.collapsing at that rate. The reason I bring that up is that my kids are
:48:20. > :48:24.in primary school and they have asked me, well, look, if in your
:48:25. > :48:28.lifetime, that 40 year period, about two thirds of the animal world has
:48:29. > :48:33.been wiped out, what will happen when it comes to us when we are
:48:34. > :48:36.adults? When I am asked that question, the short answer is that
:48:37. > :48:45.if we continue on our current trajectory there will be no natural
:48:46. > :48:47.world by the time my kids are adults. It looks like an
:48:48. > :48:51.extraordinary statement, that is the trajectory. Population is part of
:48:52. > :48:56.that, overconsumption is, but they all work together. Do we respect the
:48:57. > :49:01.natural world enough, the sentience of some animals? Absolutely not,
:49:02. > :49:05.there is a wonderful book called Beyond Words which explores the rich
:49:06. > :49:10.psychological lives of intelligent creatures like, for example,
:49:11. > :49:15.elephants, amazing social creatures who live in long-standing families
:49:16. > :49:20.headed by matriarchs up to 60 years of age. We humans have not a clue
:49:21. > :49:28.about the natural world. We are terrific at expressing and
:49:29. > :49:30.articulating our own needs, desires and wants, but we are blundering
:49:31. > :49:33.like lumbering giants into the natural world. This is the ultimate
:49:34. > :49:39.own goal, if we destroy the natural world which, by the way, we are
:49:40. > :49:43.right on progress to do, if you insist Roy the natural world, human
:49:44. > :49:46.society would collapse, no two ways about it. -- if you destroy the
:49:47. > :49:53.natural world. APPLAUSE
:49:54. > :50:00.What about the resources, mining? We do not have the resources, they are
:50:01. > :50:08.finite. How will we cope? I don't buy any of that. What didn't you
:50:09. > :50:13.buy? Everything that was just sad. I don't believe in sentience being
:50:14. > :50:17.comparable to Allah sentience. There was recent peer-reviewed science,
:50:18. > :50:27.but we will move on from that. What about resources? -- I don't believe
:50:28. > :50:34.in sentience being comparable to our sentience. Silicon has only recently
:50:35. > :50:40.become a resource. I don't want to try to predict to the end of the
:50:41. > :50:43.century, that is ridiculous. When I think about what has changed in my
:50:44. > :50:48.lifetime I have no idea what will be the main resources we will be using
:50:49. > :50:54.for whatever purpose by the end of the century, which is quite good.
:50:55. > :50:57.The young kids of today will invent the world that will exist and 50, 70
:50:58. > :51:03.years. Will they look around and say there is no more wildlife, no weld
:51:04. > :51:11.animals, no ecosystems? That seems very, very unlikely. We are
:51:12. > :51:16.exploiting resources on those habitats. Oil exploration in the
:51:17. > :51:21.Veranda National Park, you finish off the mountain drillers, they are
:51:22. > :51:28.self-aware creatures with an inner life, a right to be here. -- you
:51:29. > :51:34.finish off the mountain gorillas. I am not sure about that. About what?
:51:35. > :51:38.Whether they have a right to be year. Because nothing other than
:51:39. > :51:42.humans have a right to be here?! So the 500 million years before humans
:51:43. > :51:47.arrived, we have only been here 200,000 years, so apparently nothing
:51:48. > :51:56.mattered before humans arrived. An extraordinary conceit. May I take up
:51:57. > :51:58.the argument that we don't know what resources people will be using in
:51:59. > :52:01.future? I think we can be pretty sure we will still use freshwater
:52:02. > :52:04.for a lot of survival needs, people will still need food, they will
:52:05. > :52:09.still need livelihoods and sources of energy, all of those things are
:52:10. > :52:12.and a significant strain and it is quite irresponsible to say, oh, we
:52:13. > :52:20.will figure something out and continue as we are when we say it is
:52:21. > :52:31.just the trajectory of our culture and population. Aren't we too set on
:52:32. > :52:35.material comforts and benefits? It is extremely hard to change
:52:36. > :52:42.consumption. People say it is all about consumption. They all to
:52:43. > :52:45.suggest ways to do that. I don't want to underplay the importance of
:52:46. > :52:52.finding ways to reduce consumption but it is incredibly hard. But to
:52:53. > :52:55.make as though population does not matter is showing a tremendous lack
:52:56. > :53:00.of compassion not only to wildlife but to people, to human beings in
:53:01. > :53:03.countries experiencing fast population growth, where
:53:04. > :53:08.unemployment is rising... And for women, can I pick up the point that
:53:09. > :53:18.you started with? Dan, we have a situation here that we have a church
:53:19. > :53:24.run by men who have never known a woman telling women that they should
:53:25. > :53:27.have lots of children. Not at all, the Church nudges bishops in Rome,
:53:28. > :53:31.it is the biggest charitable organisation beyond any comparison
:53:32. > :53:35.on earth -- the church is not just bishops in Rome. It includes
:53:36. > :53:41.doctors, nurses, missionaries, many, many women. What about reproductive
:53:42. > :53:44.rights? The data I have shown suggests that there is a vast
:53:45. > :53:48.distribution of contraceptives across the developing world, often
:53:49. > :53:58.at the expense of the health care women need and the real needs of
:53:59. > :54:01.people in the developing world. For instance, there is an archbishop in
:54:02. > :54:04.Ghana... It is a sin to take... And Archbishop and Ghana said he ran a
:54:05. > :54:06.network of clinics and they could not get support from the major NGOs
:54:07. > :54:11.and agencies because they refuse to provide abortion and contraception,
:54:12. > :54:14.that is prioritising and ideology of population control over what people
:54:15. > :54:20.need. There are innumerable stories of medical staff who say women come
:54:21. > :54:24.to me needing penicillin for their sick children, needing malaria
:54:25. > :54:31.medication, they don't have it, what I have is shelves full of condoms
:54:32. > :54:34.because that is what the NGOs... Privileging and ideology? If we
:54:35. > :54:38.privilege the rights of women and girls, that is fine by me.
:54:39. > :54:42.APPLAUSE We need to alter the Vatican's view
:54:43. > :54:46.on contraception. It seems like a win-win, we might
:54:47. > :54:49.help the population but we would also help reduce poverty and also
:54:50. > :54:56.have a better economic situation, that is a win-win all round. There
:54:57. > :54:59.is no chance of this happening on contraception? Something simpler
:55:00. > :55:04.solecism can change, this is one of them. I don't think it should be a
:55:05. > :55:12.worry -- some things in pathology is cannot change. The church noses...
:55:13. > :55:16.Knows the causes of deprivation, wall, corrupt political structure.
:55:17. > :55:21.The Democratic Republic of Congo is threatened by war and resulting
:55:22. > :55:27.Common. Who is negotiating a peace deal? The church. Who is handing out
:55:28. > :55:31.a medical aids, educating, giving help to more people than any of
:55:32. > :55:37.institution? The Catholic Church, I think we should trust them. Trust
:55:38. > :55:42.the church is great, let's take the Philippines, the highest birth rate
:55:43. > :55:46.in Asia. In the Philippines, we have half a million illegal abortions are
:55:47. > :55:56.yet, 2500 Filipina women each year die as a result of illegal abortions
:55:57. > :56:01.-- half a million illegal abortions EGF. That is the result of the
:56:02. > :56:04.Catholic Church in the Philippines. It has resisted and taken 12 cases
:56:05. > :56:07.to the Supreme Court in the Philippines. The idea you can't get
:56:08. > :56:14.penicillin for your child because the shelves are heaving with condoms
:56:15. > :56:17.is... The Philippine medical Association say differently, they
:56:18. > :56:19.have opposed legislation in the Philippines to provide more
:56:20. > :56:26.contraception because this way that many macro would be better spent on
:56:27. > :56:29.maternal care. Who controls -- who controls the Philippine medical
:56:30. > :56:34.Association? I imagine Filipino doctors. Lots of people say on
:56:35. > :56:38.health grounds we need more funds for maternal care, many, many
:56:39. > :56:40.Filipinos oppose the introduction of contraception and abortion because
:56:41. > :56:45.they say it is a foreign eye geology are not what we need. On foreign
:56:46. > :56:50.ideologies, I am a little sceptical, maybe it is coming from Ireland, we
:56:51. > :56:55.were effectively a catholic state of the first 70 years of our
:56:56. > :56:59.independence, we sought the brunt of the church's interest in babies up
:57:00. > :57:01.to the moment of their birth. Beyond that point they lost interest in
:57:02. > :57:08.them. APPLAUSE
:57:09. > :57:12.The secular state in Ireland finally wrestled some control away from the
:57:13. > :57:15.Church and I personally find it tragic to see the same mistakes
:57:16. > :57:20.being made in countries like the Philippines right now that we in
:57:21. > :57:24.Ireland were the victims. At overlooks the huge contribution made
:57:25. > :57:30.by the Church, which is not equalled by any other body in the world. How
:57:31. > :57:35.do you keep population down? Do you need to, when so many population
:57:36. > :57:40.scientists say... Yes, we do. I hope you will not tell is 100 billion
:57:41. > :57:45.people will be fine, these are all possible worlds... The UN projection
:57:46. > :57:55.is wee peek at about 11 to 12 billion, that is the same until
:57:56. > :57:58.2300. -- the UN projection is that we peak ad. This is building a lot
:57:59. > :58:07.of assumptions that fertility will fall, they are extrapolating from
:58:08. > :58:11.current trends, I was quite interested in how you think that
:58:12. > :58:15.family planning is not something that women need, that what they need
:58:16. > :58:19.is medical care but they don't really need birth control. We will
:58:20. > :58:23.have to leave it there. Thank you all very much indeed. As always, the
:58:24. > :58:24.debates continue online and on Twitter.
:58:25. > :58:26.Next week, we're in Canterbury, so do join us then.
:58:27. > :58:29.But for now, it's goodbye from Newcastle and have a great Sunday.
:58:30. > :58:46.Thank you. APPLAUSE
:58:47. > :58:53.I attended Mr Delaney's funeral and a ghost appeared.
:58:54. > :58:59.I witnessed and participated in darkness that you cannot conceive.